- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010140722016 NC: 2026:KHC:46935 WP No. 59312 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 59312 OF 2016 (SC/ST) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. LALITHA BAI W/O HANUMANTHA NAIK AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, JAYANTHINAGARA @ THIRINEERUKATTE VILLAGE, CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT DEAD BY HIS LRS 1(a)(i) SMT. LAKSHMI BAI W/O. LATE NAGARAJA NAIK AGE: 39 YEARS JAYANTHINAGARA @ THIRINEERUKATTE VILLAGE CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANGERE DISTRICT - 577 213 1(a)(ii) KUM SHANKTHULA D/O LATE NAGARAJA NAIK AGE: 16 YEARS 1(a)(iii) KUM. LAVANYA D/O. LATE NAGARAJA NAIK AGE: 14 YEARS Digitally signed by K M SOMASHEKAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010140722016 NC: 2026:KHC:46935 WP No. 59312 of 2016 1(a)(iv) KUM. TRISHA D/O. LATE NAGARAJA NAIK AGE: 12 YEARS SINCE PETITIONER 1B TO 1D ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY HER GUARDIAN MOTHER P.1.A 1(b)H. ANNAPPA NAIK S/O. HANUMANTHA NAIK AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS JAYANTHINAGARA @ THIRINEERUKATTE VILLAGE CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 213 1(c) SMT. MANJULA BAI D/O. HANUMANTHA NAIK AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS JAYANTHINAGARA @ THIRINEERUKATTE VILLAGE CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 213 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. ARAVIND H., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE DISTRICT DAVANAGERE - 577 002 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DAVANGERE SUB-DIVISION DAVANGERE - 577 002 - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010140722016 NC: 2026:KHC:46935 WP No. 59312 of 2016 3. SRI SANNA NAGENDRAPPA S/O SIDDAPPA AGE: MAJOR, CHIRADONI VILLAGE, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT SAGARAPET VILLAGE, CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 213 3a. SMT. NETHRAVATHI D/O. LATE SANNA NAGENDRAPPA AGE: MAJOR C/O KEMPAIAH CHIRADONI VILLAGE PRESENTLY RESIDING AT SAGARAPET VILLAGE CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 213 3b. SMT. KAVITHA D/O. LATE SANNA NAGENDRAPPA AGE: MAJOR C/O. KEMPAIAH CHIRADONI VILLAGE PRESENTLY RESIDING AT SAGARAPET VILLAGE CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 213 4. SRI KEMPAIAH AGE: MAJOR CHIRADONI VILLAGE PRESENTLY RESIDING AT - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010140722016 NC: 2026:KHC:46935 WP No. 59312 of 2016 SAGARAPET VILLAGE CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 213 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BHAIRAV KUTTAIAH, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2 SRI. H.V. MANJUNATHA, ADVOCATE FOR R4 R3(A AND B) SERVICE OF NOTICE IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.2.2015 PASSED IN CASE NO.PTCL.CR.22/12-13 [ANNEXURE-D] PASSED BY THE R- 2 AND ORDER DATED 26.9.2016 PASSED IN CASE NO.PTCL/CR-01/2015-16 [ANNEXURE-J] PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN ORAL ORDER The land which is the subject matter of the writ petition was granted in favour of the original grantee (respondent No.3) in the year 1978. He belonged to the - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010140722016 NC: 2026:KHC:46935 WP No. 59312 of 2016 Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribe Community. The grant was subject to a condition that the land should not be alienated for a period of 15 years. The Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, "the PTCL Act") came into force with effect from 01.01.1979. As per Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act, such granted land should not be alienated without obtaining the necessary permission from the State Government. However, without obtaining the necessary permission from the State, the original grantee (respondent No.3) and his minor son have sold the said land in the year 1994 in favour of the deceased mother of the petitioners. Presently, the petitioners are the owners of the property. The sale made in the year 1994 was challenged for the first time in the year 2012 by the original grantee (respondent No.3) and respondent No.4 by filing an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. The same has been allowed by respondent No.2 - the Assistant Commissioner and his order has been confirmed - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010140722016 NC: 2026:KHC:46935 WP No. 59312 of 2016 by respondent No.1 - the Deputy Commissioner on appeal. Aggrieved by the said orders, the present writ petition is filed. 2. The case of the petitioners is that the impugned orders passed by respondent Nos.2 and 1 are passed without taking into consideration the inordinate delay on the part of the original grantee (respondent No.3) and respondent No.4 in making an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. On the said ground, it is prayed that the impugned orders be set aside and the writ petition be allowed. 3. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 justifies the impugned orders and prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. The only question that arises for consideration is whether the application filed by the original grantee (respondent No.3) and respondent No.4 under Section 5 of - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010140722016 NC: 2026:KHC:46935 WP No. 59312 of 2016 the PTCL Act has been filed within a reasonable period or not. 5. Admittedly, the sale was in the year 1994 and it has been challenged for the first time in the year 2012. There is a delay of 18 years in filing the application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. The said delay is not explained satisfactorily. Under the given peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the delay of 18 years has to be considered as unreasonable. As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi v. State of Karnataka and Another reported in (2020) 14 SCC 232 as well as the decision of this Court in R.Suresh Mohan v. State of Karnataka and Others in W.P.No.3597/2018, has held that any unreasonable delay in making the application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act becomes fatal to the case of original grantee / his legal heirs. Hence, the following: - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010140722016 NC: 2026:KHC:46935 WP No. 59312 of 2016 ORDER i. The Writ Petition is hereby allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 28.02.2015 bearing Case No.PTCL.CR:22/12-13 passed by respondent No.2 - the Assistant Commissioner vide Annexure - D to the writ petition is hereby set aside. iii. The impugned order dated 26.09.2016 bearing Case No.PTCL/CR-01/2015-16 passed by respondent No.1 - the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure - J to the writ petition is hereby set aside. iv. The application filed under Section 5 of the PTCL Act before respondent No.2 by the original grantee (respondent No.3) and respondent No.4 is hereby dismissed. v. The revenue entries in respect of the land, which is the subject matter of the writ - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010140722016 NC: 2026:KHC:46935 WP No. 59312 of 2016 petition shall be restored and status quo ante in the name of the person as it existed before passing of the impugned order by respondent No.2 - the Assistant Commissioner. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE CH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14